MAKING COMMUNITY FORESTS WORK FOR LOCAL AND INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES IN THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC: ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON STRATEGIES FOR INTERVENTION

Robert E. Moïse in collaboration with Marjolaine Pichon

May 2019

PART OF THE UNDER THE CANOPY SERIES CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS 1

GLOSSARY 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

1. INTRODUCTION 8

2. GOALS AND CHALLENGES OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY 12

3 WHY COMMUNITY FORESTRY EFFORTS HAVE FAILED TO ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS: THE CASE OF CAMEROON 15

4. CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXTS FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN CAR 17 The Land: Customary Forest Management 17 The Historical Context: Relations between Bantu and indigenous peoples 20 The People: Customary Social Organisation 22 Politics: Decision-making, Leadership and Customary ‘Democracy’ 26

5. LEVERAGING CUSTOMARY INSTITUTIONS TO CREATE SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY FORESTRY 29 Promoting Sustainable Management 29 Making Community Forestry ‘Community-Friendly’ 31 Facilitating Sustainable Commercialisation 33 Protecting Indigenous Rights and Facilitating Indigenous Participation 34

6. AREAS REQUIRING ADDITIONAL SUPPORT 37

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 38

REFERENCES 40 LIST OF ACRONYMS

CAR Central African Republic CdG Comité de Gestion (Management Committee) CSO Civil Society Organisation DfID Department for International Development (British government) DRC Democratic Republic of Congo FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consent IP Indigenous People MEFP Maison de l’Enfant et de la Femme Pygmées NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product PA Protected Area RFUK Rainforest Foundation United Kingdom UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

1 GLOSSARY

Anthropological terms

• Bayaka: also referred to as ‘Aka’, they are the most numerous of the three indigenous groups living in the forest areas of southwestern CAR. Since all our indigenous respondents were Bayaka, we also use it as a more general term for the indigenous peoples of the southwest.

• Land-holding group: the collection of individuals who share access rights to a particular forest territory. Depending on how land tenure arrangements are handled in a particular area, the land- holding group may include: a single clan, a single village (comprising multiple clans and quartiers), or a group of villages.

• Local community: The term ‘local community’ is often used in discourses on community forestry, but with very little precision about what it actually refers to. In this study, it is used to refer to the village, or group of villages, that share rights of access to a particular forest territory and who, by virtue of this fact, may seek official recognition of their rights to the resources in that territory through a community forest.

• Quartier: a French term used to designate a particular ‘neighbourhood’ within a village.

• Pygmy: the term commonly used by outsiders to refer to the indigenous inhabitants of the Congo Basin rainforest. Since it can be used in a pejorative sense, we refer to these groups with the term ‘indigenous’.

Terms defined in the document « Concept and vision for community forestry in the Central African Republic », adopted by the CAR Forest ministry in 2010

• Indigenous and village community: population traditionally organised upon the basis of custom and united by bonds of solidarity based on clans and close kin, and which give it its internal cohesion. In addition, it is characterised by its attachment to a specific land.

• Customary use rights: legally recognized rights for peoples living near a forest with a view to a free subsistence exploitation of forest products, except protected species. Customary use rights allow populations to practise gathering, subsistence hunting, traditional fishing, timber collecting and exploitation for individual or family usage.

• Community forestry: every situation in which local and/or indigenous peoples are involved in the participatory management of forest resources.

• Community forests: parts of the national forest estate which are subject to a management agreement between an organised and concerned village and/or indigenous community, on the one hand, and the government, represented by the Forest Administration, on the other.

2 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As the Central African Republic (CAR) is entering and implementing community forests with a a decisive phase that could lead to the allocation better understanding of the local milieu. This of the country’s first ‘pilot’ community forests, includes the goals of local people as they seek to the Rainforest Foundation UK (RFUK) and obtain and manage their community forests; their CAR civil society groups are supporting local customary institutions that are key to affecting communities in their application processes. the outcome; and the challenges that forest These pilots will also allow lessons to be learnt communities, especially indigenous peoples, and inform the revision of the legal framework, will most likely have to overcome. so that communities can officially manage and sustainably benefit from the forests they It is only by taking into account the milieu in have been preserving and depending on which community forest processes unfold that for generations. an alternative vision of community forestry can be developed and achieve its objectives: The failures of previous community forest i.e. sustainable forest management models initiatives in the Congo Basin should not be responding to the needs of forest communities viewed as proof that community forestry cannot and maintaining healthy subsistence economies, work in the region and should, therefore, be while preserving biodiversity and protecting the abandoned. Rather, critical analysis of past rights of indigenous peoples. Outlining such an experiences reveals the shortcomings of previous approach, and how it can work in practice, is a approaches and allows new approaches to be major goal of the present study. developed that can effectively realise larger policy goals, while simultaneously benefiting The analysis and the recommendations have local communities, governments, and the been developed based on anthropological forest environment. research with local communities in southwestern CAR – where the country’s indigenous peoples To offer community forestry a better chance of and tropical forests are concentrated – as well success in CAR, this study intends to contribute as on lessons learned in the Congo Basin to the national discussion by providing policy- more widely. makers and other actors involved in designing

Photo credit: Robert Moise

3 GOALS, BENEFITS, AND CHALLENGES FOR Other challenges include the complexity of the administrative process which must be followed COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN CAR by communities in order to obtain a community forest, as well as the potential opposition of more In a context where the rights of forest peoples politically influential third parties who may try are being infringed upon by a variety of actors – to obstruct community forest initiatives. These protected areas, loggers, miners, and commercial are even more pressing issues for indigenous hunters, whether holding a concession or peoples who, due to their lower social status carrying out an illegal trade – the primary goal and levels of literacy, may have more difficulties expressed by local communities during the going through the meandering of modern research is to return to a situation of ‘local forests bureaucracies, and to meaningfully participate for local people’. They see community forestry in decision-making processes to negotiate as an official means of doing so – a kind of ‘social their agenda. contract’ with the government that would allow them to regain control over the management of their forests – for example, by undertaking UNDERSTANDING THE PEOPLE: surveillance activities to regulate third parties’ BANTU-INDIGENOUS RELATIONS access to their territories in order to prevent over- exploitation and the depletion of forest resources. Anthropological evidence indicates that Bantu This official recognition would also help create and indigenous peoples have been sharing forest networks for support to develop livelihood areas in the Congo Basin for several thousand initiatives, such as the commercialisation of Non- years. If their relationship appears to have been Timber Forest Products (NTFPs). one of relative equality during the early period, over time Bantu became more occupied with For the local and national authorities, the the spheres of political power, warfare, and allocation of community forests will present the the emerging forms of wealth. Although they advantage of ‘delegating’ forest management placed a high value on the forest knowledge to the actors who have the most vested of indigenous groups and on the forest-related interests in the preservation of resources – i.e. goods and services they provided, the Bayaka the local communities who rely on them for later came to occupy a subordinate position. their livelihoods. In addition, provisions for community forestry demonstrate the political Today, despite various forms of collaboration will to meet the State’s commitment to the that have been maintained between the two principles of sustainable development and populations, marginalisation and human rights forest management, as enshrined in the CAR abuses remain a significant part of daily life for Forest Code and other national and international most indigenous peoples. agreements. The Bayaka (indigenous) people interviewed There is, however, a structural contradiction in were unanimous in the opinion that they the position of national governments, whose could collaborate with local Bantu in matters official policies of sustainable forest management concerning the protection of their shared forest are in direct conflict with pressures exerted on from exploitation by outsiders, but that if them by a range of economic interests (such distribution of material resources was involved, as the appeal of taxes generated by industrial Bayaka and Bantu should always be dealt with logging, etc.). If those policies are not clearly separately. articulated and executed through specific measures, such as comprehensive support to This study aims to highlight some general trends, communities and regular monitoring of forest but the relationship a specific indigenous group resources, an ‘exploitation mentality’ can take has today with its Bantu neighbours needs to over. This is because different parties may be fully understood before any joint initiative seek to take advantage of the opportunities is considered. for enrichment to the detriment of customary owners and users. The experience in Cameroon over the last 20 years is a major example to learn from, in order to overcome this ‘elite capture’ phenomenon.

4 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 UNDERSTANDING THE PEOPLE: etc.) freely expressing themselves, unless special provisions are made to increase their CUSTOMARY SOCIAL ORGANISATION participation. The present study also provides a comprehensive picture of what a ‘local community’ can be (it UNDERSTANDING THE LAND: may vary according to the context) and how it CUSTOMARY FOREST MANAGEMENT functions as a multi-layered social organisation, composed of several units: Depending on the area, the land-holding group, i.e. the social unit possessing rights to a specific - Extended family: network of close kin that customary territory, may vary from the clan to the resides together, and acts as a labour pool district level. for childcare, daily productive activities and benefit sharing; Yet despite such variation, there are certain basic - Clan: cornerstone of social identity which principles underlying customary management engenders an ethos of solidarity and systems: independence; - Village: unit of residence but not necessarily - No individual has the right to alienate any of political action, often a ‘consortium’ of collective land for his/her own purposes (sale, allied clan groups which have retained their commercial exploitation, etc.); sovereignty; - Rights to land are transmitted by birth, - District: highest-level unit in pre-colonial through marriage, and by being passed on as social organisation, set of villages that could a ‘gift’ to allies; act collectively to protect its members against - The land is ‘owned’ by the ancestors, used external threats, and occasionally engage in by the living, and safeguarded for future large-scale productive activities (collective generations. net-hunts). Thus, the customary system is an inherently A key aspect of both Bantu and Bayaka social ‘preservationist’ regime of forest management. organisation is that collective activity – the sharing of labour, resources, decision-making, etc. – is very common at lower levels of LEVERAGING CUSTOMARY INSTITUTIONS organisation, but much rarer, and potentially TO CREATE SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY problematic, at higher levels. FORESTRY UNDERSTANDING THE POLITICS: At the level of the ‘local community’ (village or district), there is often very little joint CUSTOMARY DEMOCRACY participation in collective activities. This is Each social unit is represented by a leader (chef however commonplace within the units of de famille, chef de clan, chef de village). Yet, household and extended family, characterised by while those with authority have the right to give daily contact and strong affective ties. advice, which is listened to respectfully by others, the actual decision about whether or not to follow If a group of villages share the same forest it rests with the individual. The ‘democratic’ territory, it may make sense for them to apply aspect of these decision making and conflict jointly for a community forest – not doing so resolution processes should be employed as the would potentially generate conflicts. But if foundation for community forest efforts, with the this level of organisation is weak in a political public assembly having final say over whether sense, one should not burden it with a range of proposals for collective action are accepted or challenging and difficult tasks (land use planning, not. This principle is key, as it can serve as a benefit sharing, etc.). In such circumstances, check on any attempts at elite capture. management functions should be assigned to lower level units according to what works best at However, because collective mobilisations which level. feature the talents of skilled orators before a large public, they tend to mitigate against lower- status individuals (indigenous peoples, women,

Executive Summary 5 As a rule, communities should always manage The legal framework for community forestry in their forest in the way they are most accustomed CAR is in place. However, it needs to be tested to, and no alien administrative institutions should through implementation with pilot communities be imposed on them, or this may encourage to inform the revision and development process. elite capture. For governments

IMPROVING COMMUNICATION WITH • Recognise the rights of local communities to EXTERNAL ACTORS their customary forest territories. In southwestern CAR, all forested land has been • Humans have lived in the Congo Basin allocated by the state for protected areas and/ rainforest for over 40,000 years and, or logging, mining and commercial hunting during this vast expanse of time, the forest activities, without having obtained prior consent environment was managed sustainably from local resident communities. This may through customary management practices. not only generate social conflict, it also fails to Accordingly, the rights of local peoples respect the principal of free, prior and informed to their lands, who not only have a direct consent (FPIC) which is key in international law interest in preserving them, but operate out and jurisprudence. of a conception of the forest environment that is preservationist in both its spirit and As these allocations leave virtually no its practical effects, should be recognised. geographical space for community forests, the related legal framework would require revision • The spaces available for the attribution of to allow communities to apply for an area that community forests should not be limited corresponds to their customary territories, to ‘Séries Agricoles’ or other small ‘castoff’ regardless of their size and location, even when spaces. Rather, customary territories should they overlap an existing concession. be made the basis of the allocation of community forests, an approach which has In such a context, measures should be taken already been institutionalised in DRC. to facilitate communication and cooperation between the involved parties, to ensure that the • This approach will require a change in activities of concessionaires will not be to the the existing legal framework, which limits detriment of local communities. community forests to the size of 5,000 hectares or less.

RECOMMENDATIONS • When community forest spaces overlap The vision of community forestry recommended with existing concessions or PAs, they could here is based on a two-pronged approach to be transformed into ‘shared use’ zones in sustainable development in the forests of CAR: which governance of natural resources is shared between local communities, on the 1. The Forest Ministry participates with local one hand, and concessionaires/Pas on the communities and civil society organisations other in a manner that is both meaningful and to deliver sustainable forest management: substantive.1 maintaining ecosystems and reviving local subsistence economies. • Local rights to food security should be recognised and support provided to efforts to 2. The Forest Ministry encourages sustainable revive subsistence economies. commercialisation activities and equitable distribution at the local level. • Help reduce poverty by facilitating sustainable commercialisation of NTFPs. Community forestry therefore presents an opportunity to build bridges between governments and local forest communities.

1 Karsenty and Vermullen, 2016.

6 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 • Recognise local customary institutions, community forest goals: facilitating the to create a framework for shared forest functioning of organisational structures, governance – with provisions regarding the providing support to ensure the participation modalities of land management, decision of groups and individuals with a perceived making processes, etc. lower-status (IPs, women, youth, etc.), carrying out management activities and • Test and review the legal framework and sharing the benefits, etc. community forest procedures and tools, with simplicity and flexibility as core principles, to • Seek ways to provide the various forms of enable the national scaling up of community additional support that will be needed by local forests, and not limit them to the communities communities to make community forestry who can secure external support. successful: developing alternative economic activities, creating rules for sustainable • Protect indigenous rights by respecting management, marketing NTFPs, monitoring international principles, such as FPIC, in their production to ensure sustainability, and relation to the lands that IPs use, including by so on. testing and revising specific measures within the community forest legal framework.

For civil society organisations

• Provide support to local communities to fulfil the administrative requirements of community forestry: mapping, application for the community forest, etc.

• Develop sufficient knowledge of customary institutions to be able to work effectively with local people to help them achieve their

Executive Summary 7 1. INTRODUCTION

THIS STUDY OFFERS CONCRETE PROPOSALS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ONGOING TESTING AND REVISION OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN THE CAR. IT IS BASED ON ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH WITH LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN THE SOUTHWEST OF THE COUNTRY AS WELL AS LESSONS LEARNED IN THE CONGO BASIN MORE WIDELY. IT SEEKS TO DEVELOP STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY THAT RESPECT THE RIGHTS AND NEEDS OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND HARMONISE WITH LOCAL CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS, IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE GREATEST POSSIBLE CHANCE OF SUCCESS.

Archaeological evidence indicates that the Congo - Indigenous peoples (IPs), whose livelihoods Basin has been inhabited for over 40,000 years.2 are forest-dependent, have been even more During this long expanse of time, its forests were severely impacted and must now contend with managed according to customary management various social and public health problems: systems and this was done in a sustainable poverty, malnutrition, disease, alcoholism, etc. manner, as indicated by the abundant flora and fauna encountered by European explorers upon The most effective way to secure the rights their arrival in the region in the late 19th century.3 and livelihoods of the 50 million people who depend on the forests of the Congo Basin as During the last few decades, however, as forest their economic and social safety net is to reform management has been placed in the hands of national laws governing land rights, whose international institutions, their policies – based cornerstone is the colonial legal principle that on large-scale industrial logging, combined with the state owns and controls all land that is ‘people-free’ protected areas (PAs) – have had not covered by a property title. Land reform profound consequences for the region’s lands processes have been initiated in CAR, Cameroon, and peoples: and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), but, until such reforms are enacted, local communities - Logging and its secondary effects have caused cannot secure rights to their customary lands. widespread environmental degradation; However, they can secure rights to own and - Rural poverty has increased, as logging has manage the resources found on them by applying undermined local subsistence economies; for community forests. - Forest dwellers have become squatters on their own land, due to the lack of official Thus, community forestry remains the primary recognition of their customary rights; institutional means available to help secure - The creation of protected areas has produced local rights as well as to achieve the overarching large numbers of ‘conservation refugees’ - goals of forest policy in the Congo Basin: people who, having lost their land, have had to sustainable forest management and sustainable migrate elsewhere;4 development. To date, however, community - ‘Eco-guards’, employed by PAs, have forestry efforts in the region have failed to utilise committed serious human rights abuses its potentials to achieve such goals. In fact, for the against local peoples seeking to use their most part, these initiatives may have done more traditional lands now under PA designation;5 harm to local livelihoods than good.

2 Clark 1982, and Cornelissen 2002. dire they had to apply for food aid from the UN’s World Food Program 3 Parke 1891, and Stanley 1885. (Pyhälä et al 2016:81). 5 4 In the area of the Tumba-Ledima reserve in DRC, for example, which is In the Mbaéré-Bodingue National Park in the CAR, which has been managed by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the health status of local managed by ECOFAC, there have been various reports of human rights communities barred from using their lands by the park became so abuses by eco-guards (MEFP 2011:28).

8 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 Research carried out during the two decades that - Community forests have been limited to community forestry has been implemented in parcels of 5,000 hectares or less (considerably the Congo basin (primarily in Cameroon),6 has smaller than most customary territories). identified some of the basic flaws of the current approach, which have led to these negative Although the current approach to community outcomes: forestry has failed largely because it is ill-adapted to realities at the local level, this is entirely - A short-sighted model of forest management, consistent with the international management in which ‘management’ is equated with regime, for which conditions at the local level commercialisation of timber resources through remain largely unknown and decision-making industrial logging; from afar is standard practice. - Administrative structures artificially created at the local level which favour those with education, resources and political connections – i.e. elites; - Lands available for community forests have been ‘island’ spaces near the road network, rather than customary territories deeper in the forest;

Photo credit: Robert Moise

6 Djeumo 2001, Geschiere 2004, Ichikawa 2006, and Karsenty et al 2010.

1. Introduction 9 STEPS TAKEN TOWARDS COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC (CAR): On 3 December 2015, the Transition Head of State signed Decree n°15-463 on the allocation and management of community forests in CAR, seven years after the notion of community forestry was introduced in the 2008 Forest code. The decree also adopted the ‘Manual of allocation procedures for community forests’.7 With this new legal framework, communities are now allowed to officially apply for, be allocated, and manage - according to their own needs and traditional practices - the forests that have been their customary territories for centuries or millennia.

In 2010-11, a document entitled ‘Concepts and vision for community forestry in CAR’ was developed by national stakeholders – with RFUK’s support –8 and adopted by the Forest Ministry. Among other concepts and principles, it clarified the distinction between community forestry and community forest (see glossary, p.4).

The community forest application process, as defined in the Manual of Allocation Procedures, was then elaborated with the participation of various stakeholders, including local and indigenous communities, civil society organisations, government officials, and other institutional actors, both national and international. This was the product of multiple missions to forest areas in the south eastern and south western parts of the country, two national workshops in the capital of Bangui, as well as a testing phase and a revision process.

However, in order to be better suited to local and indigenous communities’ needs and capacities, the current CAR legislation is meant to undergo:

- A second, more in-depth testing phase, leading to the official allocation of the first community forests in CAR; - A revision process with the participation of all stakeholders based on the lessons learned during the testing phase (as set out in article 7.33 of the Manual).

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 1. The goals of local people as they seek to obtain and manage their community forests; One of our primary goals is to provide the reader with the necessary information about the local 2. The challenges that the local level presents to level so that community forestry can be designed community forestry; and implemented from a position of informed understanding, offering it a much greater chance 3. The principles and practices of those of success. More precisely, the study seeks to customary institutions that are key to affecting provide the diverse set of stakeholders involved community forest outcomes; and in designing and implementing community forestry in CAR, such as policy-makers, donors, 4. The particular challenges that IPs face in the Forest Ministry, civil society organisations community forestry efforts. (CSOs), etc. with a basic understanding of:

7 Manuel de procédure d’attribution des forêts communautaires en Ministère des Eaux, Forêts Chasse et Pêche (MEFCP - Ministry in République Centrafricaine. charge of the forests) and CAR civil society, to develop the concepts 8 These activities were undertaken as part of a project on participatory of community forestry and the legal framework for the allocation and mapping of community lands, funded by the British Department management of community forests. for International Development (DfID). RFUK provided support to the

10 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 The second major goal of the study is to employ METHODOLOGY this information as a knowledge base for developing an alternative vision of community Three months of in-depth field research was forestry, one which: carried out by anthropologist, Robert E. Moïse, with a range of Bayaka9 and Bantu communities - Can effectively achieve global goals because in the forests of southwestern CAR, before the it takes into account the local milieu in which political and security crisis began. The data were community forest processes unfold; then revised and updated. The primary focus - Is able to take advantage of the opportunities of the research was obtaining the point of view community forestry presents without falling of local peoples on what would be required to prey to the myriad pitfalls and unintended make community forestry work effectively in their consequences it can generate; communities. In addition, the author draws on - Places the needs of forest communities and three decades of experience working with local the health of subsistence economies at the communities in the Congo Basin to develop the centre of its strategies; insights offered here. - Protects the rights of indigenous peoples and minimises the risk of their marginalisation in The relevance of the study is due to current community forest processes. steps being taken by the CAR government to elaborate community forestry strategies as To realise such a vision, the approach most likely part of its overall forest management policy. to succeed is one which views community forests The publication of the study is intended as a as opportunities to develop fruitful and equitable contribution to that process. In addition, although collaborations between local communities, the focus of the study is community forestry in forest authorities, and CSOs. Outlining such an CAR, an effort is made to generalise its findings approach, and how it can work in practice, is the so they are relevant to the Congo Basin as third major goal of the study. a whole.

The document is divided into five sections. The first outlines the goals, benefits and challenges A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY of community forestry in the Congo Basin. The In this study, the term ‘Bantu’ is used for second examines why community forests in the majority population of the Congo Basin. the region have failed to achieve their goals. Although this term is linguistically inaccurate, as The third describes the various customary it includes speakers of Bantu, Oubangian, and institutions that are key for producing successful Sudanic languages, it reflects local usage, as it community forest outcomes. The fourth makes is the global term these groups use to refer to use of this knowledge to develop structures themselves. The term ‘indigenous’ is used here and processes for community forestry that to refer to the various ethnic groups commonly are most likely to produce such outcomes. It called ‘Pygmies’ by outsiders, as the latter term offers general strategies to follow, as well as can be considered pejorative. In Bantu oral specific adjustments to make in community traditions, Pygmy populations are commonly forest structures and processes, so that this new considered to have been the first occupants of the vision can become a reality. This is followed by a forest,10 so calling them ‘indigenous’ is consistent conclusion and a set of recommendations to both with local usage. However, it must be pointed out the Forest Ministry and CSOs on how they can that Bantu groups, though not ‘indigenous’ in a best facilitate successful community forestry strict sense, have lived in the forests of the Congo in CAR. Basin for several thousand years.11

9 ‘Bayaka’ (or ‘Aka’) is the general term commonly used for IPs living language differences and they are basically similar in cultural terms. in the forest areas of southwestern CAR, but there are actually three Since all the indigenous respondents interviewed for the study were groups in the region: (1) Bayaka, the most numerous, who are found Bayaka, we use it here as a general term for IPs of the southwest. throughout the area; (2) Bofi-Aka, a small group in Lobaye Prefecture; 10 Klieman 2003. and (3) Babenzélé, a small group in the far southwest of the country 11 (Sangha-Mbaéré Prefecture). However, these groupings are based on Eggert 2005, Ehret 2001, and Vansina 1995.

1. Introduction 11 2. GOALS AND CHALLENGES OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY

Community forestry involves the participation community forestry can create the potential and collaboration of a range of actors: the for new sources of support in the pursuit Ministry of Forests in the capital, forestry of common goals: sustainable forest officers in the field, local rural authorities and management, sustainable commercialisation local communities. Before exploring the most of forest products, and so on. effective means to carry out community forestry activities, it is important to understand: (1) what • Protect indigenous rights: the Forest Codes of the motivations and goals of the different actors most countries in the region, along with their are; and (2) what benefits they hope to gain from related legislation, provide limited protections the creation of community forests. for the rights of indigenous peoples. However, when these laws are combined with the provisions of Convention No. 169, ratified GOALS AND BENEFITS by the CAR Government in 2010, as well as Goals for local communities the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which all The primary goal expressed by the local regional states have endorsed, they provide communities we visited during our research was a legal framework that offers substantial that they wanted to return to a situation of ‘local protections for indigenous rights. If this legal forests for local people’ and saw community framework is taken into full consideration forestry as an official means of doing so – a during the processes of allocating and kind of ‘social contract’ with the government managing community forests, it will be an that would allow them to regain control over the ideal opportunity to adopt measures that management of their forest territories. would place the principle of free prior and informed consent (FPIC) of communities This was in direct response to a historical at the centre of every intervention, and trend experienced in recent years throughout provide enduring protections for the rights of southwestern CAR – and across the Congo Basin indigenous peoples to continue using their – in which local economies have been severely traditional lands. compromised by the impact of outside forces, i.e. industrial logging, protected areas, mining, Goals for governments and commercial hunting. This combination of powerful forces has rendered local people mere Forest codes in all countries of the region ‘spectators of history,’12 who must stand by and are based on a commitment to the principle watch as their traditional lands are degraded and/ of sustainable development of forest areas. or taken away. In addition, the inclusion of provisions for community forestry display the political will Benefits for local communities both to engage in community-based forest management and to extend the benefits of • Provide official recognition: community forestry practice to the local level. forests can provide official recognition of the right of local peoples to manage their forest Benefits for governments territories according to their own needs, creating a sense of empowerment in local • Extend capacity: community forests can communities. extend the capacity of the Forest Ministry to manage forest lands and resources, • Reduce pressure on resources: it can realise by developing a model of multi-actor an ecological benefit, for example by removing collaboration that can help implement national outside commercial hunters from the pool of management policies at the local level. users of forest lands, or regulating their access to them, and thereby reduce pressure on • Promote sustainable management: as this faunal populations. formal collaboration pursues its goals, it can harmonise the spaces classified as community • Create networks for support: by creating forests with the long-term goals of national a network of cooperation between local forest policy. communities, government and CSOs,

12 Fernandez 1982.

12 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 CHALLENGES If a policy of sustainable management is not clearly articulated and executed through specific Although community forestry can provide measures, such as comprehensive support to benefits to both sides in this collaborative communities and regular monitoring of forest effort, there are various challenges that must resources, an ‘exploitation mentality’ can take be addressed before it can hope to succeed in over, as different parties may seek to take this mission. advantage of the opportunities for enrichment offered by the new system, to the detriment Challenges at the national level of customary owners and users. The primary example of this is what happened to community In CAR, as in all Congo Basin countries, forest forests in Cameroon. management is a pluralistic proposition – a mixture of two very different, and often The lands that local peoples want to protect and conflicting, management regimes: manage are their customary territories. However, in CAR, there are a number of legal restrictions, - The customary management regime, which including a size limit of 5,000 hectares (50 km2) has facilitated the sustainable management of per community forest, as well as provisions the region’s forests for millennia; prohibiting the creation of community forest - The modern management regime, an within territories classified as PAs or allocated inheritance from the colonial era, whose effect to logging or mining concessionaires. Knowing in recent decades has been widespread forest that this is the case for almost all forested land in degradation and the undermining of local southwestern CAR, one of the main challenges subsistence economies. is that no space is left for communities, except in what is referred to as ‘Séries Agricoles et Unless the modern management regime can d’Occupation Humaine:’ parcels of land, usually learn from the unfortunate lessons of its recent close to human settlements, that loggers are past, and take into account the needs and required to allocate to communities within their customary rights of forest communities, it is concessions. However, these areas are often destined to continue with this same approach, extremely small and degraded, making it difficult, producing negative impacts at the local level. if not impossible, for communities to satisfy their subsistence needs. For community forests There are structural contradictions in the to have a significant chance of success, these position of national governments, whose official limitations must be reconsidered. policies of sustainable forest management are in direct conflict with pressures exerted on them by a range of outside economic interests. In southwestern CAR, this is a major challenge, considering:

- That 80% of forested land has been allocated to industrial logging companies;13 - That 14.8% of forested land has been allocated to PAs managed by foreign agencies, whose funding has often been used to implement a strict conservation approach to the detriment of local peoples;14 - The emergence of numerous artisanal and illegal mining sites.15

13 Agence Française de Développement, Fiche 5/10. - 86 690 ha pour le Parc National Mbaéré-Bodingue, selon la Loi N°07.008 14 Sources : de 2007, - 18 200 ha pour la réserve de biosphère de Basse Lobaye, - 120 000 et 335 000 ha pour le Parc Dzanga-Sangha et la réserve spéciale, voir http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/directory/biores. selon la Loi N°90-017 de 1990. asp?mode=all&code=CAF+01 15 Matthysen and Clarkson 2012: 34-35.

2. Goals and Challenges of Community Forestry 13 Challenges at the local level Challenges for indigenous participation

Administrative requirements There are also a range of challenges to the successful participation of indigenous At the local level, the first challenge presented communities in community forestry. First, the by community forestry is a product of the challenges posed by administrative requirements administrative process, as practiced in Cameroon are an even greater obstacle for them, given their 16 and integrated into the CAR legislation. even lower levels of literacy and education, as Although this process may make perfect sense to well as the cultural distance between their own government officials, it poses various challenges practices and those of modern bureaucracies. for local people, many of whom lack the levels of literacy and education needed to make sense of In addition, there are challenges posed by their administrative requirements. low status in regional societies:

Power differentials - How does one guarantee indigenous participation in decision-making processes Execution of the kinds of management plans within local management committees when discussed by the communities we visited during the tendency is for indigenous individuals the research would require certain forms of to be marginalised from decision-making in power, as there are various forces – locally and ‘mixed’ (Bantu/IP) contexts? more widely – who could put up resistance - How can one make equal distributions of to putting these plans into practice. As such, any collective community forest revenues communities would need: to indigenous communities when, in Bantu political culture, distributions of material - Access to political power – to negotiate their resources are considered to reflect social agenda when other powerful actors oppose it; status (those with high status receiving more, - Assistance with enforcement – to counter the those with low status receiving less)? efforts of powerful actors who oppose local management plans (commercial hunters, etc.).

Cultural and political challenges

As a result of historical trends occurring since Independence, particularly migration, the composition of ‘local communities’ can be very complex and their constituent elements may have very different agendas:

- Local Bantu and indigenous communities who simply want a functioning economy, a stable existence and the sustainable means to earn a basic livelihood; - Labour migrants – in many cases, now unemployed – and commercial hunters, who see forests as a source of revenue, but often lack the knowledge and the will to exploit the resources in a sustainable manner.

16 Although the CAR Manual of procedure was elaborated with the participation of all stakeholders with the intent to make the administrative requirements as simple as possible, the level of complexity remains significant and should be addressed during the next revision process.

14 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 3. WHY COMMUNITY FORESTRY EFFORTS HAVE FAILED TO ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS: THE CASE OF CAMEROON At the most basic level, community forestry 3. Selection of land to protect: the only areas in Cameroon failed to achieve its stated goals which were eligible to become community because the approach used by the government forests were located in ‘island’ spaces near did not take into account customary management the road network, rather than customary regimes nor the needs of its citizens living in forest territories deeper in the forest. areas. In particular, its design and implementation included four basic flaws that led to the destructive 4. Small size of community forests: limited to consequences experienced by local communities: parcels of 5,000 hectares or less – considerably smaller than most customary territories. 1. Management approach: it employed a very short-sighted model of forest management, in which ‘management’ is equated with commercialisation of timber resources through industrial logging.

2. Administrative style: it required the creation of administrative structures at the local level - committees, associations, cooperatives, etc. - which:

(1) Operated according to bureaucratic principles and procedures that have no cultural precedents in the local setting; and

(2) thereby favoured those with education, resources and political connections (i.e., elites).

LEARNING FROM PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES In CAR, the Manual of allocation procedures was elaborated after having observed, and learned from, community forestry experiences in other countries (see page 7 of the manual).

This led the CAR legislators to adopt a different approach for some aspects, in order to avoid the pitfalls observed in Cameroon. For example, a wide range of forest activities were considered rather than focusing on logging, and the creation of administrative structures by communities did not become a legal requirement.

However, some other limitations were maintained, such as the size limit and other constraints related to the types of land eligible for the creation of community forests. In the interest of addressing these limitations, community representatives, CSOs and government officials came to the understanding that the testing phase, allowing for the allocation of pilot community forests, would be the opportunity to document evidence of, and present justifications for, further reforms (see article 7.33 of the manual).17

Recalling the lessons learned in other countries is not only essential for the revision of the legal framework, but also for each phase of the implementation process. However beneficial laws can be to communities in theory, they will have a difficult time achieving their goals and may produce unintended negative consequences, unless they are adapted to the realities of the local setting.

17 From the Manual of community forests allocation procedure: “7.33. The applicability of the present Manual will be evaluated at the end of each period of three (3) years after the signing of its regulatory text. Considering the results of this evaluation, the Manual will be revised if necessary, in collaboration with all stakeholders.”

3. Why Community Forestry Efforts have Failed to Achieve their Goals: The Case of Cameroon 15 Although official documents embraced the In addition, as the sale of forest territories gained need for sustainable forest management, momentum, few locals wanted to be left out of once community forests were created in the process and they became ‘eager to exploit Cameroon, the forest administration treated them via community forests’.20 In this way, a the commercialisation of forest lands through program intended as a path to ‘sustainable industrial logging as a key component of the development’ devolved into a commercial program – presented as a measure to facilitate ‘feeding frenzy’, whose only contribution to the ‘reduction of poverty’ among local peoples. local empowerment was the democratisation of environmental destruction. What this led to in practice is what Karsenty et al18 refer to as a ‘de facto privatisation process’, Yet because the individuals profiting from such in which lands formerly shared within larger activities were mostly elites, this democratisation communities were divided up into smaller units was quite limited. In addition, it was at the and rights to them were sold to outsiders for expense of local and indigenous communities, timber exploitation. whose forest-based economies were sacrificed for short-term gain by elites. As Djeumo19 notes, logging companies (and many forest experts) in Cameroon came to think of the community forest as ‘another type of logging permit,’ which facilitated a broader range of timber exploitation.

18 Karsenty et al 2010: 2. 20 Ibid. 19 Djeumo 2001: 11.

16 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 4. CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXTS FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN CAR To avoid making the mistakes that were made in At the same time, formal systems of tenure Cameroon, we propose a very different approach exhibit variety in terms of land-holding groups, - one grounded in the principle of sustainable i.e. the social units possessing rights to forest management and one that is sensitive to customary territories: the needs and aspirations of local communities. Yet to carry out such an approach, one needs - A single village can exercise rights over a sufficient knowledge of Congo Basin forest particular forest territory; societies to be able to determine what are those - Clans within a village can exercise rights over needs and aspirations. In particular, one needs a particular spaces within the village territory basic understanding of: (although a same clan can also exist within multiple villages); - The everyday workings of economic, social - A much larger area of forest can be shared by and political life at the local level; several villages within a region, even though - The customary institutions that are of direct their interrelations may be amorphous and relevance to community forest processes: vague. In such situations, what may bind this social organisation, forest management, larger ‘community’ together is simply the fact decision-making, and so on; of personal recognition among its members: - The unique status of indigenous peoples in locals will proclaim that ‘on se connait’ (we all regional societies and the complexities of the know one other). Bantu/IP relationship. Yet despite such variation, there are certain basic Knowledge of all these areas is necessary if one principles underlying customary management is to create an effective form of collaboration, systems that are found throughout the in which management functions are shared Congo Basin: equitably between the central government and local communities. In this section, we provide - Access to a particular forest territory is limited a basic introduction to those areas of local life to the land-holding group (clan, village or which are key to successful community forestry. group of villages), their relatives and visitors, and those who have been given their permission. THE LAND: CUSTOMARY FOREST - Even though certain sites within a MANAGEMENT community’s territory can belong to individuals or families – garden plots, fishing Over the broad expanse of time that humans holes, caterpillar trees, etc. – no individual have lived in the Congo Basin, different systems has the right to alienate any collective land of land management have emerged in different for his/her own purposes (sale, commercial parts of the region. In some places, particularly exploitation, etc.). around newly-created settlements, rights of - The customary territory is ‘held’ by a particular access to the surrounding forest can be very community, or group of communities, and open and flexible. Yet in many areas, population is passed on to their descendants to sustain density and other factors led to the emergence of their livelihoods. In this way, each forest clearly-defined, formal systems of land tenure: territory is very much a ‘commons’23 and the community with rights to it acts as a ‘trustee’ - As Karsenty et al note: “(i)n some cases, of a collective patrimony that is passed down lineages have a strong authority on the forest through the generations. territory they claim, access is well codified and - The actual ‘ownership’ of the territory lies in 21 boundaries are precisely known.” the mystical realm, as spirits are considered to - And as Hewlett states for southwestern CAR, act as ‘guardians’ of the land, maintaining its “(e)very local villager or forager knows the fertility and providing the living with access to limits of different patrilineal territories. The it. Here, one finds variation across the region limits are distinguished by small streams or in terms of the spirits considered to play this particularly large trees and/or a particular role: spirits of the ancestors; local land spirits; 22 species of tree.” the spiritual being that created the forest.

21 Karsenty et al 2010: 2. 23 Ostrom 1990. 22 Hewlett 1996b: 3-4.

4. Cultural and Historical Contexts for Community Forestry in CAR 17 - Rights to land are transmitted by birth (each green on most maps, such graphic conventions individual enjoys access to the territories of mask a fundamental human reality. The region his/her mother and father), through marriage comprises a vast network of collectively-held (each individual acquires access to those ‘commons’ – spaces which local communities of his/her spouse’s mother and father), and depend on for their daily subsistence, which by being passed on as a ‘gift’ to friends or are managed according to long-established partners in alliance relationships. customary practices, and rights to which are - Knowledge of the territory – its boundaries, passed down from generation to generation. resources, and lore – is transmitted to youth by Organisations like RFUK strive to support their elders in the course of daily subsistence communities in the elaboration of ‘participatory activities carried out within it. maps’24 (see example below), in order to make this reality visible and understandable to all, and Although the Congo Basin rainforest is provide a material basis to support their claims to represented as a vast, uninhabited expanse of their customary territories.

FIG. 1. EXAMPLE OF CUSTOMARY TERRITORIES OVERLAPPING LOGGING CONCESSIONS, EQUATEUR PROVINCE, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO.

24 Over the past 15 years, RFUK has been supporting local and indigenous Through a programme called MappingForRights, RFUK and local communities in the production of their own maps, by combining partners have been empowering forest communities to: (a) demonstrate modern cartography tools with participatory methods. Participatory their long-term presence in the forest and therefore their customary maps represent a socially and culturally distinct understanding of rights over their lands and resources; (b) convince national decision- landscape and include information that is excluded from mainstream makers and the private sector to recognise those rights; (c) convince or official maps. Maps created by local communities represent the the international community in designing programmes to ensure that place in which they live, showing those elements that they perceive forest communities are equitable beneficiaries of future developments. as important such as customary land boundaries, traditional natural MappingForRights, RFUK resource management practices, sacred areas, and so on. It is based on the premise that local inhabitants possess expert knowledge of their local environments, which can be expressed in an easily understandable and universally recognized geographical framework.

18 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 In addition, because the land is ‘owned’ by the an inherently ‘preservationist’ regime of forest ancestors, used by the living, and safeguarded management. for future generations, the customary system is

IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY • The customary forest territory acts as the fundamental safety net for individual and family in forest communities throughout the Congo Basin.

• The inhabitants of different communities possess customary rights over particular forest territories, which are recognised by everyone in the local setting.

• These rights should be respected by outsiders – in the context of community forestry, logging concessions, PAs, etc. Such a practice is entirely consistent with international principles such as FPIC.

• Institutional processes that give exclusive rights over forest territories to small groups of individuals – as is the case with community forests in Cameroon – are in direct conflict with customary practices governing rights to land.

• Any commercialisation of forest products undertaken within a community forest must respect the principles and practices of the customary regime. In particular, it should not decrease or nullify the ability of others within the community to gain a subsistence from the land.

Photo credit: Robert Moise

4. Cultural and Historical Contexts for Community Forestry in CAR 19 THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT: RELATIONS their relative statuses were expressed in the realm of exchange: in keeping with a wider BETWEEN BANTU AND INDIGENOUS cultural logic whereby distributions of material PEOPLES resources reflect social status, indigenous groups received less in exchanges of certain The migration of Bantu-speaking peoples into material goods.30 the equatorial forest was well underway by 1,500 B.C.E., but it was another few millennia before Yet despite these formal expressions of lower they had established themselves throughout the status, inequality was limited to specific contexts, region.25 During this early period, the material and there were a number of domains in which conditions facilitating later domination of sharing and collaboration occurred between the indigenous groups were absent and relations two groups: between the two populations appear to have been one of intimate association and relative - In the economic realm, Bantu provided equality in political terms, as suggested by indigenous groups with iron, agricultural food, evidence for extensive language borrowing and and trade goods, while indigenous people gene flow between the two groups, as well as provided meat, honey, ivory, and other forest material exchange from the beginning of products in return; their contacts.26 - In relation to land, Bantu and indigenous groups shared rights of access to forest Over the course of the 1st and 2nd millennia C.E., territories; however, a ‘big man’ political culture emerged, - In the realm of security, Bantu provided which produced chiefdoms, principalities, military protection, while indigenous groups and kingdoms in some areas, with other areas provided forest reconnaissance and fought becoming subject to regional hierarchies based alongside their ‘allies’ in battle; on a widespread warrior culture; with the - The supernatural realm, indigenous groups rise of the Atlantic trade in the 17th century, provided Bantu with access to the invisible these processes only intensified.27 These world through various ritual services; transformations produced new divisions between - In the realm of leisure, indigenous groups used immigrants and autochthons: Bantu became their music and dance skills to liven up Bantu occupied with the spheres of political power, social gatherings.31 warfare, and the emerging forms of wealth, while indigenous groups remained focused on the In this way, the lives of pre-colonial Bantu and material resources and mystical powers issuing indigenous groups were intertwined in several from the forest. As increasing levels of political, critical dimensions and the relationship was very economic, and military power became necessary much one of mutual support. to hold one’s own in the regional environment, and indigenous groups failed to keep pace with During the colonial era, indigenous groups were this escalation, they came to be seen as ‘men never ‘colonised’, in large part because they were of no worth’,28 deserving only of a position of able to elude colonial armies and administrations subordinate clientship – i.e., mere ‘Pygmies’.29 by residing deep in the forest. Although this provided them with much greater autonomy than In this new regime of social inferiority, the the majority of colonial subjects, it also meant majority of indigenous groups came to depend they lacked exposure to the various modern on their Bantu neighbours for the military and institutions and practices that the colonial political protection that the new environment experience introduced into African life: school, required. But because Bantu provided their church, modern medicine and so on. As a result, indigenous acquaintances with protection, they they entered the post-colonial era with a distinct expected them to exhibit the kind of deference lack of access to modern resources, a situation displayed by political subordinates. In addition, that, for the most part, endures still today.

25 Klieman 1997, and Vansina 1984. 29 Moïse 2014. 26 Bahuchet 1993a and 1993b, Cavalli-Sforza 1986, Klieman 2003. 30 Douet 1914. 27 Vansina 1990. 31 Moïse 2014 28 Laburthe-Tolra 1981.

20 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 One of the primary cultural values of indigenous In particular, forced labour, sexual exploitation groups is autonomy, which manifests itself in and servitude remain common practice, with a variety of ways: (a) keeping their distance Bantu individuals (‘the masters’) considering in residential arrangements (making separate ‘their pygmies’ as property.34 settlements from their Bantu neighbours or residing in distinct quartiers on the edge of Although the study aims at highlighting some Bantu settlements); (b) a general preference for general trends, the relationship a specific Bayaka forest residence (to avoid the labour demands group has today with its Bantu neighbours and identity projections of Bantu); and (c) is often the result of a unique history, and an ‘egalitarian’ political culture in which no characterised by various degrees of both mutual individual has the right to force any other to do support and domination/submission, which anything against his/her will.32 needs to be fully assessed and understood before any joint initiative is considered. In sum, indigenous groups often face a dilemma: either seeking to preserve their autonomy by choosing settlements deeper in the forest, making them even more marginalised; or living closer to Bantu villages with a relative access to health and education, but risking to be subject to various types of domination. Either way, marginalisation and discriminations remain a significant part of daily life for most Bayaka people, as noted for example by the African Commission’s Working Group on Indigenous Populations / Communities, which has found:

“ The indigenous Aka people suffer from extreme marginalisation, they have a high level of illiteracy, they experience a lack of legal protection of their ancestral lands, logging still impacts negatively on their livelihoods, the practice of servitude remains, women are often subjected to violence and sexual abuse, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has reached Aka settlements, there is a lack of access to primary health care and a lack of enjoyment of citizenship rights on a par with the rest of the population in the Central African Republic.”33

32 Moïse 2011 In return for the ‘assistance’ provided, the ‘Pygmies’ carry out work 33 African Commission’s Working Group on Indigenous Populations / in the fields for their ‘masters’ for little or no remuneration, and they Communities 2009: 15-16 cannot complain as they would often suffer from all sorts of violence. […] The ‘master’ is accountable to no-one for his treatment of his 34 Ibid, p.44-45: ‘Pygmies’, not even to the local authorities or the police. In fact, for ‘The practice of ‘Pygmies’ masters’ still persists in the Central African many, the ‘Pygmies’are not even considered human beings like the rest Republic. This consists of an individual or a family holding Aka of the population. individuals or entire Aka families in their home or on their lands. The This phenomenon of ‘masters’ is particularly common in some of beneficiaries of this practice often talk about the Aka as ‘my Pygmies’, the provinces that have a large Aka population. In the prefecture of implying a proprietary relationship. […] The provision of gifts and Lobaye, for example, which is said to have the highest concentration of the incurring of debts means that many of these relationships with ‘Pygmies’, a survey by development and human rights NGOs in 2004 the ‘Pygmies’ become relationships of servitude. This may relate, in revealed that 59.7% of ‘Pygmies’ still had ‘masters’.’ particular, to a ‘master’ paying a ‘Pygmy’s’ dowry, to providing him with second-hand clothes, or to representing or defending him before the authorities. […]

4. Cultural and Historical Contexts for Community Forestry in CAR 21 IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY • The relationship between indigenous forest peoples and Bantu is complex and multi-stranded. IPs share a great deal with Bantu in some domains, which can provide a common ground for joint activity, but in others, they are treated as social inferiors and seek to distance themselves from Bantu whenever possible. Which scenario pertains depends entirely on context.

• In the realm of material exchange, because Bantu regard IPs as social inferiors, they invariably give them less in exchanges.

• In the political realm, this entails IPs are often marginalised in decision-making processes.

• In the realm of forest use, however, the relationship between the two groups involves considerable sharing and interaction. In addition, Bantu place a high value on the forest knowledge of IPs, whom they depend on for a range of forest-related goods and services.

• As a result, Bayaka we interviewed were unanimous in the opinion that they could collaborate with local Bantu in matters concerning protection of their forest from exploitation by outsiders, but that, if distribution of material resources was involved, Bayaka and Bantu should always be dealt with separately.

THE PEOPLE: CUSTOMARY SOCIAL - are indeed carried out by residents of the local community, but they are managed at much ORGANISATION lower levels of organisation: the household, the extended family, the clan, etc. The issue of scale, The myth of the ‘local community’ or organisational level, is critical to understanding The tendency in administrative and policy how customary institutions work. discourses on community forestry in the Congo Basin is to view the ‘local community’ In this way, daily life in a local community – as a single, coherent social unit that routinely production and distribution, decision-making, carries out political functions: decision-making, forest management, etc. – unfolds at a scale land management, etc. In short, it tends to be considerably lower than that of the community thought of as a political unit, with a chain of as a whole. Thus, to understand how Congo command, capable of executing collective actions Basin forest societies manage these activities, around common goals. In reality, many local one has to understand how things operate at communities in the Congo Basin forests are these lower levels of organisation. Without such loose agglomerations of varied social groups an understanding, policy-makers, governments who have come to reside with one another due and CSOs are easily led astray by the myth of the to the vagaries of history – colonial resettlement, local community because they misunderstand migration, etc. – and they do not necessarily carry how rural communities actually operate. In out any collective activity, political or otherwise.35 addition, when this myth serves as the starting Often, they are much more like ‘towns’ with the point for the development of Community Forestry village chief acting as a ‘mayor.’ structures and processes, it can have dangerous consequences: encouraging elite capture, Many of the activities that administrative and inhibiting understanding of the position of policy discourses presume to be carried out at marginalised groups, and maintaining too the level of the local community - production, broad of a focus to address internal conflicts distribution, land-management, decision-making and social tensions.

35 Geschiere 2004

22 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 To avoid these outcomes, the key levels of the responsibilities of child-rearing and the customary social organisation for Congo Basin associated benefits of bridewealth, has a leader forest societies are described in this section. (chef de famille) to represent it in broader public Since social organisation for Bantu and IPs is in discussions, and possesses mechanisms for many ways similar, we present a general model resolving disputes that arise within it (réunions for both groups, but point out the particularities familiales). of each when it is relevant to community forest activities. Although extended-family groups comprise the building blocks of settlements for both Bantu and IPs, one important difference between the two The extended family groups is that the extended family also functions The core of the extended family usually consists as a ‘unit of mobility’ for IPs. Although extended- of a set of siblings who grew up together. It family groups join with other such groups to comprises several households and in a patrilineal create larger settlements among both Bantu system may include a set of brothers (as sisters and IPs, IPs residential arrangements are more marry out); their wives and children; their flexible and when their settlements go through widowed mothers; their divorced sisters and a change in composition, it is usually because their children; and their younger married sons particular extended-family groups have either with their wives and children. It is an intimate joined or split off from the settlement. Among network of close kin that resides together, acts as IPs, therefore, it is always the members of the a labour pool for collective productive activities extended family who decide where and with (farming, spear hunts, collective fishing), shares whom they shall live.

DISTRICT

VILLAGE

CLAN

EXTENDED circularFAMILY diagram

The cornerstones of customary social organisation

4. Cultural and Historical Contexts for Community Forestry in CAR 23 Although the colonial experience superimposed various structures of authority over the village sphere, eroding the political sovereignty of the clan, it continues to provide a sense of psychological and emotional belonging to its members, offers mechanisms to resolve their disputes, occupies a particular space within the village, serves as a land-holding group providing access rights to both Bantu and IP users, possesses its own sacred sites, undertakes collective forest activities, selects its own leader, carries out land management, and engenders an ethos of solidarity and independence. Photo credit: Robert Moise

Members of a Bayaka extended-family group, CAR The village The size of villages can vary considerably, but they normally are amalgamations of multiple The clan extended-family and clan groups. The pre- colonial era witnessed significant variation in In the forest societies of the Congo Basin, village size, from small, isolated hamlets to the clan is a cornerstone of social identity; large, fortified villages, but the colonial and marriage is permitted only with those post-colonial eras have driven the growth of belonging to clans other than one’s own. Its village size through such processes as colonial psychological importance is illustrated by the resettlement and post-colonial migration. A key fact that Barthélémy Boganda, the leader of the fact for understanding the traditional role played independence movement in CAR, compared the by the village in Congo Basin forest societies is role it plays for the individual as similar to that that, even though it was a unit of residence, it was played by the nation in the modern West, i.e., not necessarily a unit of political action, as the a fundamental unit of cultural, emotional, and clans that comprised it retained their sovereignty. psychological belonging.36 In this way, it always remained a ‘consortium’ of allied clan groups. The clan not only offers individuals a moral and psychological foundation, it functions as In terms of social organisation, the village is an organisational unit in a range of domains: primarily a space - a settlement - in which a set of it often has its own ‘neighbourhood’ (quartier) clan groups reside. Yet in the contemporary era, it within the village, it holds a forest territory, it can also contain various institutions that function acts as a unit of mobility, and, in the pre-colonial at the village level, including a state-recognised era, it was politically autonomous, especially for village chief, a tribunal to resolve disputes among Bantu. In his description of the traditional social its residents, and, if it is large enough, structures organisation of the Mongo peoples living south of providing social services, such as schools, health the Congo River bend, Vansina considers the clan centres, and churches. (etuka) to have been the most important political unit in village life.37 He states:

“The etuka (clan) was led by a patriarch, possessing insignias of authority, administering the domain, mediating internal conflicts, deciding blood feuds and wars, all with the consultation of the elders of lesser lineages. The etuka were independent, even if they were grouped in a single village... the etuka always remained sovereign.”38

36 Kalck 1971. 38 Vansina 1965: 87. 37 Vansina 1965.

24 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 The district

One important difference between the customary social organisation of Bantu and IPs is that the level of the ‘district’39 seems to have been more formalised among Bantu groups. It was the highest-level unit in pre-colonial social organisation and is probably best described as a set of villages – geographically-dispersed, but within a particular locality – whose members had forged alliances with one another, either through intermarriage, ritual blood pacts, or other means. The members of the district could engage in occasional, large-scale productive activities, such as collective net-hunts, but districts were particularly important for creating The members of a district gather on the Congo River for a large-scale military organisation that could act a wrestling match, c. 1908 collectively to come to the aid of its members for defence against external threats. In addition, they provided an important venue for regional social in Congo Basin historical experience – for the kind life, such as dances, marriages, funerals, and of organisational structure one is trying to create so on. in a contemporary community forest. As a result, its various features, such as its modes of creating As a collection of dispersed-yet-local groups collective unity, the kinds of contexts in which it sharing common interests that allowed them to did or did not act collectively, etc. should be taken act collectively in relation to outside forces, the seriously by those engaged in contemporary district is the pre-colonial precedent – the parallel community forestry efforts.

39 Vansina 1990

4. Cultural and Historical Contexts for Community Forestry in CAR 25 IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY • A key aspect of both Bantu and Bayaka social organisation is that collective activity – the sharing of labour, resources, decision-making, etc. – is very common at lower levels of organisation, but much rarer, and potentially problematic, as one reaches higher levels.

• Thus, at the level of the land-holding group (the clan, the village, or the district in some cases) there is often very little joint participation in the collective activity. In this way, the land-holding group is at a level higher than those characterised by daily contact, strong affective ties, or joint collective activity – things that are commonplace within the units of household and extended family.

POLITICS: DECISION-MAKING, LEADERSHIP This profound emphasis on autonomy has direct implications for the forms taken by leadership. AND CUSTOMARY ‘DEMOCRACY’ Among both Bantu and IPs, social units at all key levels of organisation are represented by a leader: Autonomy and leadership the extended family has its chef de famille, the Political life in Congo Basin forest societies is a clan, its chef de clan, and the village, its chef de product of the interaction of two forces: village. Yet at all these organisational levels, the interplay between authority and autonomy is 1. A strong cultural value on individual such that those with authority have the right to autonomy; and give advice, which is listened to respectfully by others, but the actual decision about whether or 2. A structure of authority relations that confers not to follow it always rests with the individual. limited political authority on leaders In this way, leadership lacks coercive power and operates forever in an advisory role.43 We now A commitment to individual autonomy is the consider two important decision-making contexts cardinal principle of political life among Congo to show how this political style plays out in Basin IPs. As noted by one observer, who spent daily life. the first decade of the 20th century in close contact with Bayaka in present-day CAR: Structures for decision-making Collective mobilisations “The guiding principle of the Babinga (Bayaka) is to live free and to submit to someone else In the course of daily life in a village, various only if he chooses to... above all, the Babinga situations arise that require some form of prefers liberty.” 40 collective action, such as the need for agricultural labour, an extended-family or clan going into the Similar observations have been made by scholars forest to procure seasonal resources, the desire working with IPs across the region.41 to provide hospitality to visitors, etc. When such situations occur, individuals address assemblies Although more formal structures of hierarchy of the relevant social group – extended-family, and authority are found among Bantu groups, clan, village – and offer their proposals for individual autonomy remains a cornerstone of collective action to be taken in response. political life. As Ngoa states, in pre-colonial Bantu Although there are no rules about who can speak forest societies, ‘dignity consisted in total liberty in such assemblies, there are clear tendencies. of action.’ 42

40 Douet 1914: 20,29 42 Ngoa 1968: 70 41 Bahuchet 1985, Dodd 1983, Hewlett 1991, Moïse 2011, Putnam 1948, 43 Geschiere 1982: 45 Turnbull 1965b

26 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 Usually, it is elders, experienced orators, or those an assembly of the relevant group: family, clan, with some degree of influence or authority who or village. The plaintiff and defendant give their speak publicly, especially in assemblies at higher- versions of the relevant events, while spectators levels of organisation – e.g., the entire village. chime in as witnesses and advisors, with those These individuals make oratorical addresses in in authority asking questions. Once this process which they formulate proposals for collective has run its course, the authorities go off to action and attempt to inspire their co-residents deliberate, make a decision about the complaint to carry them out. It is then up to the assembly and any appropriate restitution recommended, as a whole to give its consent, or withhold it, for and return with a judgement. Whether the any proposal by following through on it or not. In judgement is accepted or not depends entirely this way, the right to speak publicly and advance on the disputants. If they agree to it, they pay any proposals for collective action belongs to those compensation that may be required and offer a with political authority, but the right to make communal drink or meal, in which all participate, decisions about them belongs to all. It is in this signalling that the dispute has been resolved. sense that Congo Basin political culture has been described as ‘a profoundly democratic vision of The roles of political authority and the public in society’ (Kalck 1971). decision-making processes

Some collective mobilisations that are relatively In the decision-making processes just outlined, easy to organise are productive activities in the those with political authority and the broader forest, such as collective hunting and fishing ‘public’ both have key roles to play. In collective expeditions. These vary from one-off events mobilisations, those with political authority are improvised on the spur-of-the-moment to able to speak before the public assembly and seasonal activities occurring with regularity. recommend proposals for collective action. But Other attempts at collective mobilisations might it is the assembly itself that has the final word focus on getting the youth in the village to pitch on whether such proposals are acted upon or in for community projects (clearing a road of not, as they always require public consent. In fallen trees, cleaning a neighbourhood), enlisting dispute-resolution processes, those with political help with agricultural work in a peak season, authority have the right to assess the conflict and so on. On the other hand, more political, or brought before them, question witnesses and ambitious, mobilisations may be more difficult to offer their judgement on the matter. But the organise or may never get off the ground. final decision is based on both the presiding authority’s judgement and the disputants’ Dispute resolution response to it. In addition, the public assembly plays an active role in the entire process, as In the daily life of a village, there is no shortage they freely offer their testimony and opinions on of conflicts and disputes – disagreements that the dispute. In this way, political authority has arise and which, if not resolved, can jeopardise important responsibilities and key roles to play, social harmony and have political repercussions but final control over outcomes always rests with (if families or factions get angry and move away). the public. Such situations also involve collective decision- making, as the community must decide what The more ‘democratic’ aspects of these action to take to avoid further social rupture. processes should be employed as the foundation of collective decision-making in community forest In dispute-resolution, the participation of the efforts, with the public assembly having final say public is greater, even though the process is more over whether proposals for collective action are firmly in the hands of political authority. Dispute- accepted or not. This principle is key, as it can resolution proceedings are initiated by claimants, serve as a check on any attempts at elite capture. who bring a problem before the appropriate authority: chef de famille, chef du clan, chef du village. The complaint is then addressed before

4. Cultural and Historical Contexts for Community Forestry in CAR 27 At the same time, because collective forest processes? Since these are envisioned to mobilisations feature the talents of skilled orators take place at the level of the entire community, before a large public, they tend to mitigate where those of lower status are often reticent to against community members, especially lower- speak publicly, this could indeed occur, unless status individuals, freely expressing themselves. special provisions are made to increase their Will such actors – women, IPs, immigrants - participation. experience this same vulnerability in community

IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY • The pervasive value of autonomy in Congo Basin political culture, coupled with the nature of social organisation, means that the higher the organisational level, the more collective decision-making is a political achievement. This strong emphasis on autonomy argues for employing very particular organisational structures for community forest efforts. The most effective forms of organisation would be those:

- That provide a high degree of autonomy to the various social units (extended families, clans, etc.) participating in the community forest;

- In which the bulk of daily decision-making is carried out at lower levels of social organisation – extended family, clan, etc.

• Like collective mobilisations in customary decision-making processes, all proposals for collective action to be undertaken in a community forest should be approved by a public assembly that includes all the users of the forest territory. Not only is this consistent with customary decision-making, it will act as a hedge against any attempts at elite capture.

• Because it is unlikely that the particular needs and goals of lower-status actors will be expressed in large public assemblies, smaller-scale venues – women’s and IP’s committees, or any other type of marginalised individuals’ gatherings – should also be created for them to freely express themselves and to develop their own particular goals for community forestry.

28 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 5. LEVERAGING CUSTOMARY INSTITUTIONS TO CREATE SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY FORESTRY Having described the customary institutions at One of the most troubling aspects of the the local level that are of particular relevance current management regime is that all sorts to community forestry, we now consider their of initiatives are carried out by external actors implications for developing community forest on the customary lands of forest communities, structures and processes. In particular, we many having serious impacts on their well-being, consider how to leverage these institutions to without obtaining their consent. External actors create a form of community forestry that: consider themselves to have the right to pursue their agendas because they have negotiated an - Promotes sustainable forest management; agreement with the government in the capital - Is ‘community-friendly’; city. But because the necessary preliminary steps - Facilitates sustainable commercialisation; and have not been taken at the local level, forest - Protects indigenous rights and ensures communities can be completely uninformed of indigenous participation. change of management regime and de facto ‘ownership’, and it is in such situations that In this section, we offer suggestions on how to resistance, and violence to dispel it, occurs. Not achieve these goals and in the next section, we only does this lack of communication have the identify areas in which local communities will tendency to generate social conflict, it is also require additional support. illegal, as FPIC is now considered to be a key principal in international law and jurisprudence. Loggers, miners and park managers who are PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT holding concessions overlapping forest peoples’ Leverage customary regimes to achieve customary territory, should seek to obtain their sustainability and revive local subsistence consent before planning new activities that may economies affect them.

Given that customary regimes are inherently In a similar way, when a local community applies ‘preservationist’ in nature (see pp. 14 - 15), for a community forest that would overlap an and served as the basis for sustainable forest existing concession, provisions should be made management in the Congo Basin over the for the involved parties to meet, discuss, and millennia, they should be leveraged to create agree on how they will use the shared space: sustainable management in the contemporary what resources matters to whom, when and era. This will require paying attention to local where do they need access to them, what subsistence economies, which have been measures can be taken to ensure that the significantly compromised during the last few exploitation of a given species will not affect decades by the activities of external actors. another’s livelihood on the short or long term, Thus, efforts should be made to assist local etc. A written document, such as a protocol of communities in reviving their subsistence collaboration, should also be drawn up to clarify economies so the traditional guardians of the the rights and commitments of both parties, and land can once again enjoy food security and to create permanent channels of communication. economic stability. In such a context, a certain level of cooperation Improve communication between locals and is necessary to ensure that the activities of external actors concessionaires will not be to the detriment of local communities. Since the major portion of the southwestern forest has already been allocated to Industrial logging concessionaires and PAs, it is inevitable that many community forest spaces will need to be If, for larger policy reasons, the government regarded as ‘shared-use’ zones (Karsenty and deems it necessary to carry out industrial Vermeulen 2016), in other words spaces which logging in an area, do it in such a way that local are shared between local communities and subsistence economies can be preserved: external actors. In such a situation, one of the first steps in community forestry will be developing 1. Coordinate with communities about planned effective communication between locals and logging activities (where, when and for how these actors. long), so they can plan their own activities

5. Leveraging Customary Institutions to Create Successful Community Forestry 29 within the concession: hunting, fishing, issued by CAR civil society and RFUK to promote gathering of non-timber forest products the sustainable management of the Parc National (NTFPs), i.e., any activity that does not affect de Mbaéré-Bodingué in the southwest (MEFP timber production. 2011). A more ‘collaborative’ approach to conservation would be based on: 2. Do not take moabi trees, which are a critical species for the local diet and for traditional 1. Allowing traditional subsistence hunting in medicine. park areas (especially by IPs).

3. Make provisions to control the secondary During our research, one Bayaka community effects of industrial logging: create an who had lost their customary territory when a enforcement apparatus that allows locals to PA was established in the area proposed that control the influx of outsiders - especially they be allowed to hunt within it periodically. commercial hunters - generated by the They suggested that the park could decide building of logging roads into remote forest how often hunts would take place, what areas. species would be taken, the number of animals allowed, etc. When their proposal was brought 4. Assist communities in monitoring the actions to the attention of one of the park officials, of logging companies in relation to the cahier he acknowledged that species such as the de charge process, i.e. use community forest blue duiker (cephalophus monticola) were structures to hold companies accountable. numerous in the park and could be subjected to periodic hunting without posing any threat Protected areas to the population. Such an approach would be feasible in an ecological sense, would In the eyes of conservationists, the major point reduce the nutritional problems faced by of contention between local communities and the community, and would help to establish PAs is what is referred to as ‘poaching’ – the collaborative relations between locals and the procurement of game that is ‘endangered’ or park. otherwise forbidden because it is within the boundaries of a park. Accusations of poaching 2. Employing members of local communities have led to numerous human rights violations as ‘forest monitors’ who could patrol their 44 committed by park rangers. own customary lands that fall within areas designated as PAs. However, the major reasons that poaching of endangered species continues is: (1) parks lack 3. Find other subsistence territories for the resources and manpower to control the vast communities whose lands fall within ‘no-use’ spaces they encompass and (2) locals are so zones and/or give them first priority for wage alienated by the park’s confiscation of their lands employment in the park. that they are willing to let poachers operate, or even assist them in their efforts, due to their Commercial hunting current state of impoverishment brought about by the creation of the park (this is particularly the Commercial hunters pose a serious threat case with IPs). to the subsistence economies of local forest communities, but their status as outsiders is Protected areas should always be managed markedly different from that of the external actors with full participation of local and indigenous just discussed. Whereas logging companies, communities, and in full respect of their rights, PAs and some hunting companies obtain official including rights to lands and resources. For permission to use a specific concession for a instance, if affected communities were hired by specific purpose, most commercial hunters the park and allowed regulated subsistence use, operate completely outside the purview of there could be an ‘alignment of interests’ for the state authority – they are opportunists taking two parties, allowing for effective collaboration. advantage of increased access to forest resources This is consistent with the findings of a report afforded by logging roads.

44 Pyhälä, Orozco, and Counsell 2016; MEFP 2011.

30 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 The approach recommended here is to empower In this respect, it is commendable that the CAR local communities to patrol their own forest government has revised its community forest territories and to monitor encroachments on them manual, to allow local communities to create their by commercial hunters, which should then be own management structures. What remains is for dealt with by the enforcement apparatus set up the state, and supporting CSOs, to gain a basic for community forestry. If the Forest Ministry can familiarity with such structures to know how best successfully tackle the problem of commercial to engage with them. hunting unleashed by the construction of logging roads, it would significantly reduce the Appropriate scales for management activities destructive effects of logging on local economies, while substantially improving relations with local As noted in the discussion of customary communities. forest management (pp. 17 - 19), some local communities in the southwest forest region have tenure systems in which an area of forest belongs MAKING COMMUNITY FORESTRY exclusively to the clan that manages it and is not ‘COMMUNITY-FRIENDLY’ shared with other clans residing in the settlement. In other systems, although the clan still functions Models for the management committee as the management unit, the various clan forests in a given area also constitute a single territory, The legal frameworks developed for community to which any resident of the village (or group of forestry in several Congo Basin countries have villages) has access. In the latter case, the social taken for granted that the local management complexity of the land-using group could easily committee (Comité de Gestion, or CdG) will be lead to conflicts, if special measures are not put a ‘bureaucratic’ organisation, containing a small in place to manage such large community forests. number of members holding positions deriving The points and recommendations in this, and the from modern bureaucratic culture: president, following section, are made with this latter case vice-president, treasurer, etc. In striking contrast, in mind: the socially-complex settlement, whose rural villagers in various Congo Basin countries land-using group consists of multiple clans (or have all had in common that they envision the even villages). CdG as an ‘association’ of representatives of the constituent social groups - clans and quartiers - In such communities, the best way to avoid that make up the village (or villages). conflict between the various social units (clans and quartiers) that comprise the land-using During our CAR research, when we asked group, and to ensure mutually-beneficial members of local communities, ‘who should collaboration between them, is to abandon be in the CdG?’ they invariably replied, ‘a management models based on the myth of representative from each clan (or quartier) the ‘local community’ (see pp. 22) and replace within the village’. The variation that emerged them with models based on local-level realities. was simply whether this should consist of one For example, the ‘collectivist’ vision of much representative or two - the latter consisting of community forest discourse presumes that the one male and one female, to ensure the full community as a whole must agree on all aspects participation of both genders. Women often of the community forest: the content of the proposed two such representatives, as did management plan, who is in the management various Bayaka. organs, what they consist of, etc. In addition, it presumes that since the community forest In addition, they seem to feel that the only belongs to the community as a whole, the way their locality (clan or quartier) will have bulk of its tasks will be carried out at the level a voice in community forest processes is if of the community: forest management, their representatives are in the CdG. Thus, the land-use planning, revenue generation, state, or other external actors, should not try to and distribution, etc. impose alien administrative institutions on local communities that fail to meet their needs and may also encourage elite capture.

5. Leveraging Customary Institutions to Create Successful Community Forestry 31 Balancing the rights of clans and the needs of Rather than presuming that every activity in the communities community forest must be the business of the community as a whole, the members of the local In communities whose land-using group is large community, along with those supporting their and composed of multiple clan groups, there is effort, should pose the question: a built-in tension between the needs and rights of the land-holding clans, on the one hand, and What functions work best at which those of the community as a whole, on the other. organisational levels? During community forest research in DRC, one young villager addressed this tension and asked: If the level of the local community is weak in an organisational and political sense, one should “Why should we sacrifice our (clan) forest (by not burden it with a range of challenging and logging it) to build a new road for the village? difficult management tasks. Rather, management Future generations are going to need that functions should be assigned to the different forest.” organisational levels on the basis of what they do, what their character is, and what their skills are. In other words, if fulfilling a need at the level If one follows such an approach, the management of the local community is going to destroy an structure of a community forest might look enduring subsistence economy for a clan, it can something like Figure 2. hardly be considered successful community forest management.

FIGURE 2: EXAMPLE OF FUNCTIONS TO BE Given this tension within large communities, between the settlement as a whole and the land- UNDERTAKEN AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THE holding clans that comprise it, it is recommended LOCAL SOCIAL ORGANISATION that, for any proposal for collective action to be undertaken in a community forest, the customary Organisation owners of the affected area should have the Level Function first and last word on whether or not to carry it out. For example, if members of the local Local - Obtaining the community community want to make a community farm or a community forest from the forest conservation reserve in their community forest, administration the process would involve a negotiation between - Protecting it against the clan that holds the land and the community external threats as a whole, in which each party must obtain - Carrying out occasional satisfaction. If not, the clan/community tension civic projects for the risks to create serious social ruptures that could common good jeopardise the very functioning of a community Clan - Ongoing management of, forest. and land-use decisions for, clan forests In addition, given the fact that collective action becomes ever more difficult at higher levels, Voluntary - Mobilisation of labour for proposals for community-level actions will likely associations, collective church projects congregations, be most effective for issues enjoying a broad etc. that address the needs public consensus: of particular interest groups within the local - Collective protection against external threats; community - Improvement of collective well-being: infrastructure, improving household income, etc.

32 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 FACILITATING SUSTAINABLE be monopolised, is not only an invitation to elite capture. It also runs the risk of producing social COMMERCIALISATION conflicts over how collective funds will be spent. In this regard, the ‘safest’ revenue generation is The pitfalls of an exclusive focus on at the level of the individual or household – as commercialisation and monetisation in agricultural production – because revenue In economic terms, forest environments are is distributed within social units that can easily infinitely more valuable intact than degraded. manage it without producing conflict. Once one When intact, a forest territory can feed, house reaches the level of the community as a whole, and provide health care for an entire village over however, revenue generation and distribution the generations. However, a purely monetary become much more challenging politically and view of economy prevents one from recognising must be managed with care and wisdom to avoid these non-monetary economic functions, which if producing conflict. not protected may be lost forever. Part of the problem lies in the nature of cash, The obvious danger of commercialisation is that, as opposed to natural resources. Traditional by commercialising natural resources beyond subsistence activities that generate natural sustainable levels, the community forest will resources - group hunts, collective fishing, etc. - become degraded, thereby undermining the carry with them protocols for how their proceeds subsistence economy. should be distributed, which, if followed, conform to local expectations about what is fair. On the Generating revenue in a sustainable manner other hand, distributions of cash have no such protocols to regulate them and seem much Almost all local communities to whom we more complex politically, especially when they spoke expressed the desire to re-establish a involve members of different status groups (men, functioning subsistence economy. Beyond women, IPs, etc.). that, the major revenue-generating activity discussed was agricultural production for sale Such complications can be avoided, however, if to local and regional markets. People were also one refrains from turning the collective revenue open to the production of NTFPs to generate into cash for general distribution and puts it revenue. However, if this is put into practice, it aside for community use. That is, if one can would have to go hand-in-hand with a method to keep the funds out of distribution, and stored in monitor resource levels to avoid overexploitation, a safe place, they can be withdrawn later, when which would require additional investments a specific need arises in the local community. in monitoring and possibly outside technical In this case, however, storage poses a major support (see p. 37). challenge, due to the lack of security in the village. Of course, banks serve this purpose in Distributing revenue in an equitable manner urban areas, but rural villagers do not have this option. Thus, alternatives for secure storage of Avoiding elite capture funds must be found. Elite capture is made possible when the resources of a community forest are monetised and pooled, In general, the pre-requisite for equitable with additional structures put in place that allow sharing of resources, and the management of them to be monopolised. Such a situation never collective funds, appears to be that there is a arises in the daily life of a community, but it can relationship of trust between the participants be created by outside interventions and imposed and they are committed to acting in good faith. on the local setting, if small group of individuals This can emerge in various times and places running the management committee is given among various groups of people, but there is decision-making power over how community no guarantee that every community will be funds are used. characterised by such an environment. As a result, each community will have to find its own Challenges to managing collective funds and particular solution to this problem, but outside potential solutions institutional support will probably be key.

The pooling of collective resources, and the putting of structures in place that allow them to

5. Leveraging Customary Institutions to Create Successful Community Forestry 33 Photo credit: Robert Moise

PROTECTING INDIGENOUS RIGHTS AND as before a village assembly. As a result, their views on community forestry could easily FACILITATING INDIGENOUS PARTICIPATION remain invisible unless specific actions are taken to elicit them. Overcoming the challenges to community forestry in ‘mixed’ (Bantu/IP) communities 4. IPs suffer from the same problem as women There are at least four main challenges to doing in distributions of collective resources: the community forestry with IPs living in mixed portion that Bantu (men) think women and IPs communities: deserve is invariably less than what they think they deserve, creating further challenges for 1. Due to their much lower level of access to distributions of collective revenues in mixed education, if IPs are to become truly active communities. participants in community forest processes, they may require the assistance of a 5. Bantu people living in mixed communities facilitating CSO that can provide information can be wary of outsiders’ intentions toward and technical assistance. their indigenous neighbours: fearing that such outsiders may try to undermine their position 2. Their daily subsistence activities make much in the Bantu/IP exchange relationship, or more extensive use of the forest, so their provide IPs with special treatment or benefits, patterns of land-use and needs are different etc. from Bantu and will require special attention to articulate. To ensure that indigenous communities have a voice in local forest management processes 3. Like women, they are lower-status actors who and their rights to forest lands are protected, a are hesitant to speak in public venues, such set of principles, structures, and processes are recommended.

34 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 The proposed approach is to create a space for Developing IP management plans IPs to be able to reflect on their own needs and goals for community forestry and to develop Once the land use of IPs has been mapped, the these into a coherent program of land-use next step would be to develop the equivalent that can be employed in community forest of IP Management Plan(s) for the lands used by negotiations within their community. This would the indigenous sector(s) of the community – a involve: the production of their own maps of land- statement of indigenous needs and goals. Again, use, the development of their own management it is recommended that this be first developed by plans, the creation of an Indigenous Council for IPs separately. Their maps of forest-use should community forest processes, and the adequate be built on to help them articulate their goals and representation of IPs in the various management plans for the different spaces within the territory. structures of the community forest. Given the political environment of mixed communities, Once the IP map(s) and management plan(s) however, this will not always be an easy task. have been produced, one would try to integrate them with those of their Bantu neighbours. Indigenous Council If initial negotiations between Bantu and IPs happen at a small scale, among individuals well The organisational structure that the Manual known to one another, they should have much of allocation procedures recommends more chance of success than if the needs of IPs establishing, at the local level to encourage were negotiated at the level of the community as the active participation of IPs in community a whole. forest processes, is the Conseil Autochtone or Indigenous Council. It would act as the principle Once the IP management plan(s) have been organisational structure providing an interface drawn up, the Indigenous Council can submit it/ between the indigenous sector of the local them to the management committee. community and community forest processes. It should include the indigenous representatives Then, once the management plan for the in the local Management Committee, but could wider community has been developed, the consist of as many individuals as the indigenous management committee would hold several sector of the community desires. In addition, the meetings (réunions préliminaires de consultation various social sectors – elders, leaders, women, et de concertation according to the Manual youth, etc. – should be well-represented. of allocation procedures) that would include the members of the management committee, Mapping IP land use the customary council (Conseil Coutumier) and the Indigenous Council. The members of Because the land-use of IPs can differ markedly these bodies would attempt to combine these from that of their Bantu neighbours, it is essential Management Plans – the one of IPs and the one that the full extent of their usage of the forest of the wider community. If they are successful, territory is properly documented. In order to do the combined document would become the this, it is recommended that the research for management plan for the whole community. map-making be first carried out by IPs separately. If not, a third party could be called in as a mediator to help resolve their differences. Although some Bantu villagers may view this as a ‘special treatment’, it is entirely justified by the fact that IPs would most likely not be well heard, if the mapping exercise were to be undertaken immediately at the scale of the whole community. The intent is to ensure that they are able to present their views with a strong voice, on a more equal footing with Bantu, after deliberating amongst themselves.

5. Leveraging Customary Institutions to Create Successful Community Forestry 35 IP representation in management structures Revenue distribution in mixed communities

For the needs of the IP sector of a mixed The issue of revenue distribution has already community to be addressed in community forest been addressed (see pp. 33), but how this processes, it is essential that they be adequately applies to the case of IPs deserves mention. represented in the different management In general, the safe-keeping of revenues for organs for the community forest. In terms of use in community-level projects avoids the the management committee, most respondents political complexities of distributions of material recommended that it should take the form of an resources (cash, etc.). When such distributions association of representatives from the different are necessary, however, the method suggested clans and/or quartiers that make up the village. by all of our Bayaka respondents was to separate If such a structure was put in place, and each IP the sums for the IP and Bantu sectors of the group was able to select one or two (male and community and to let the IP sector carry out its female) representatives for it, this should allow own distribution. As they stated repeatedly: the IP sector to achieve equitable representation. In addition, IP respondents emphasised that, “We can collaborate with the Bantu to protect in selecting individuals as their representatives our forest, but if there is any money to for community forest structures, it will also be distribute, we must be given our own share to important to include youth, as their higher levels divide among ourselves.” of literacy will be an advantage for dealing with the various written documents involved.

36 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 6. AREAS REQUIRING ADDITIONAL SUPPORT

Technical assistance for administrative processes actors could aid such efforts is by leveraging their access to wider political and economic Since many local communities lack sufficient frameworks to connect communities to levels of literacy and legal knowledge to carry out commercial networks: buyers, markets, micro- the various administrative procedures required credit loans, etc. by the community forest legal framework, they will need additional technical assistance for this Security assistance task. Although the revision of the application procedure and the elaboration of management From the local perspective, the provision of norms should aim at reducing the paper work to security for a community forest is a key issue, its bare minimum, literacy and knowledge of the especially since outside commercial actors administrative apparatus are likely to remain vital. exploiting local lands are often much better- armed than villagers themselves. In addition, Technical assistance to develop rules for if a community seeks to return to sustainable sustainable use of NTFPs management of its natural resources, and prohibit unregulated exploitation by outside actors, Although forestry professionals, governments security is an issue that will have to be addressed. and international partners readily talk about Thus, once respondents started getting specific the potential that community forestry has about their plans for their community forest post- for reducing local poverty through the attribution, they readily brought up the security commercialisation of NTFPs, any such activity issue. As one man stated: will require both preparation and follow-up to ensure that resources are exploited in a “Our presence at the fishing spots in the dry sustainable manner. Inventories should first be season prevents strangers from fishing on our made of what resources a community forest lands during that time. We are already sending contains with potential for commercialisation. people to our forest camps to keep their If resources with such potential are found, eyes out for strangers. (Once our community some form of monitoring system must then forest is approved), we will start telling our be put in place to ensure their exploitation neighbours that there is no more free entry does not surpass sustainable levels. Although into our forest. And we will put guards there to local systems are already in place that can be enforce it.” built upon for monitoring, outside support and technical assistance may likely be necessary if In the current context, security is clearly an issue such efforts are to be successful. throughout the country, but the forests of the southwest - one of the two regions that have the Assistance with poverty-reduction initiatives potential to engage in community forestry - are quite stable from a security point-of-view. Due to the compromised nature of many local subsistence economies, the need for the In this regard, there seem to be at least introduction of alternative economic activities two elements involved in the enforcement to address local poverty - training in enhanced of regulations within a community forest: farming techniques, livestock-raising, etc. - was a (1) monitoring and (2) actual enforcement. regular theme expressed during the interviews. Realistically, probably the only thing that local Many of these activities may go beyond the communities should be tasked with is monitoring, usual mission of a facilitating CSO, but they may while enforcement should be in the hands of still have the means to create partnerships with parties with a certain degree of military and outside development organisations that could political power. provide such assistance.

In addition, supporting CSOs should assist communities in developing economic activities based on NTFPs that can bring in revenue, but do not compromise sustainability or produce conflict. One component of this is the monitoring of these activities to ensure sustainability, but an additional means through which outside

6. Areas Requiring Additional Support 37 7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Photo credit: Robert Moise

The vision of community forestry recommended For governments here is based on a two-pronged approach to sustainable development in the forests of CAR: • Recognise the rights of local communities to their customary forest territories. 1. The Forest Ministry participates with local Humans have lived in the Congo Basin communities and civil society organisations rainforest for over 40,000 years and, during this to produce sustainable forest management: vast expanse of time, the forest environment maintaining ecosystems and reviving local was managed sustainably through customary subsistence economies. management practices. Hence, the rights of local peoples to their lands, who not only 2. The Forest Ministry encourages sustainable have a direct interest in preserving them, commercialisation activities and equitable but operate out of a conception of the forest distribution at the local level. environment that is preservationist in both its spirit and its practical effects, should be Community forestry therefore presents recognised. an opportunity to build bridges between governments and local forest communities. • The spaces available for the attribution of community forests should not be limited The failures of previous community forest to ‘séries agricoles’ or other small ‘castoff’ initiatives in the Congo Basin should not be spaces. Rather, customary territories should be viewed as proof that community forestry cannot made the basis of the allocation of community work in the region and should be abandoned. forests, an approach which has already been Rather, critical analysis of past experiences institutionalised in DRC. reveals the shortcomings of previous approaches and allows new approaches to be developed that • This approach will require a change in can effectively realise larger policy goals, while the existing legal framework, which limits benefiting local communities, governments, and community forests to the size of 5,000 hectares the forest environment. or less.

The legal framework for community forestry in • When community forest spaces overlap with CAR is in place. However, it needs to be tested existing concessions or PAs, they could be through implementation with pilot communities transformed into ‘shared use’ zones in which to inform the revision and development process. governance of natural resources is shared

38 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 between local communities, on the one hand, • Seek ways to provide the various forms of and concessionaires/PAs, on the other, in a additional support that will be needed by local manner that is both meaningful communities to make community forestry and substantive.45 successful: developing alternative economic activities, creating rules for sustainable • Local rights to food security should be management, marketing NTFPs, monitoring recognised and support provided to efforts to their production to ensure sustainability, and revive subsistence economies. so on.

• Help reduce poverty by facilitating sustainable commercialisation of NTFPs.

• Recognise local customary institutions, to create a framework for shared forest governance, with provisions regarding the modalities of land management, decision making processes, etc.

• Test and review the legal framework and community forest procedures and tools, with simplicity and flexibility as core principles, to enable the national scaling up of community forests, and not limit them to the communities who can secure external support.

• Protect indigenous rights by respecting international principles, such as FPIC, in relation to the lands that IPs use, including by testing and revising specific measures within the community forest legal framework.

For civil society organisations Photo credit: Robert Moise • Provide support to local communities to fulfil the administrative requirements of community forestry: mapping, application for the community forest, etc.

• Develop sufficient knowledge of customary institutions to be able to work effectively with local people to help them achieve their community forest goals: facilitating the functioning of organisational structures, providing support to ensure the participation of groups and individuals with a perceived lower-status (IPs, women, youth, etc.), carrying out management activities and sharing the benefits, etc.

45 Karsenty and Vermullen 2016.

7. Recommendations 39 Geschiere, P. (2004). Ecology, belonging and xenophobia: the REFERENCES 1994 forest law in Cameroon and the issue of ‘community’. In Harry Englund & Francis B. Nymanjoh, eds, Rights and the African Commission’s Working Group on Indigenous Politics of Recognition in Africa, London: Zed Books, pp.237- Populations / Communities (2009). Report of the research and 261. information visit to the Central African Republic, 15-28 January 2007, ACHPR and IWGIA Geschiere, P. (1982). Village communities and the state: changing relations among the Maka of south-eastern Agence Française de Développement (Fiche 5/10). Etudes de Cameroon since the colonial conquest. London: Kegan Paul cas AFD/PRS sur les objectifs du millénaire pour le International Ltd. développement: appui à l’aménagement forestier en RCA. Government of the Central African Republic, Loi N°08.022 du Bahuchet, S. (1993a). History of the inhabitants of the Central 17 Octobre 2008, portant code forestier de la République African Rain Forest: Perspectives from comparative linguistics. Centrafricaine. In: Tropical forests, people and food: Biocultural interactions and applications to development, edited by C M Hladik, A Government of the Central African Republic, Décret N°09.111 Hladik, O F Linares, H Pagezy, A Semple, and M Hadley:37-54. du 28 avril 2009, fixant les modalités d’application de la loi Paris: UNESCO. N°08.022 du 17 Octobre 2008, portant code forestier de la République Centrafricaine. Bahuchet, S. (1993b). La Rencontre des Agriculteurs: Les Pygmées parmi les Peuples d’Afrique Centrale. Paris: Peeters- Government of the Central African Republic, Arrêté N°09.021 SELAF. du 30 avril 2009, fixant les modalités d’application de la loi N°08.022 du 17 octobre 2008, portant code forestier de la Bahuchet, S. (1985). Les Pygmees Aka et la Foret République Centrafricaine. Centrafricaine. SELAF, Paris. Government of the Central African Republic, Décret N°15.463 Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (1986). African Pygmies. Orlando: du 03 décembre 2015, fixant les modalités d’attribution et de Academic Press. gestion des forêts communautaires en République Centrafricaine. Clark, J. D. (1982). The cultures of the Middle Paleolithic/ Middle Stone Age. In: The Cambridge History of Africa, Vol. 1: Government of the Central African Republic (2010). Concepts From the earliest times to c. 500 B.C.: 248-341. Cambridge: et vision de la foresterie communautaire en République Cambridge University Press. Centrafricaine.

Cornelissen, E. (2002). Human responses to changing Government of the Central African Republic (Signed in 2011, environments in Central Africa between 40,000 and 12,000 BP. adopted in 2015). Manuel de procédure d’attribution des forêts Journal of World Prehistory 16:197-235. communautaires en République Centrafricaine.

Djeumo, A. (2001). The development of community forests in Hewlett, B. S. (1996). Foragers and rural development. Cameroon: origins, current situation and constraints. Rural Unpublished report to ECOFAC. Composante RCA Ngotto Development Forestry Network, network paper 25b, July 2001. Forest Reserve, République Centrafricaine.

Dodd, R. (1983). ‘Rituals and the maintenance of internal Hewlett, B. S. (1991). Intimate fathers: The nature and context cooperation among the Baka hunters and gatherers.’ Paper of Aka Pygmy paternal infant care. Ann Arbor: University of presented at the Third International Conference on Hunting Michigan Press. and Gathering Societies, Bad Homburg, Federal Republic of Germany, June 13 - 16, 1983. Ichikawa, M. (2006). Problems in the conservation of rainforests in Cameroon. African study monographs, Douet, L. (1914). Les Babingas. Ethnographie (2) Paris: Bulletin Supplementary Issue 33:3-20. de la Société d’Ethnographie de Paris. Kalck, P. (1971). The Central African Republic: a failure in de- Eggert, M. K. (2005). The Bantu problem and African colonisation. New York: Praeger. archaeology. In: African Archaeology: A critical introduction, edited by AB Stahl:301-326. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Karsenty, A, Lescuyer, G, Ezzine de Blas, D, Sembres, T and Publishing. Vermeulen, C. (2010). Community forests in Central Africa: present hurdles and prospective evolutions, paper presented at Ehret, C. (2001). Bantu expansions: re-envisioning a central the conference, taking stock of smallholder and community problem of African history. International Journal of African forestry: Where do we go from here? March 24-26, 2010. Historical Studies: 34:5-40. Montpellier, France.

Fernandez, J. W. (1982). Bwiti: an ethnography of the religious Kleiman, K. A. (2003). ‘The Pygmies were our compass:’ Bantu imagination in Africa, Princeton: Princeton University Press. and Batwa in the history of West Central Africa, early times to c. 1900 C.E. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.

40 The Rainforest Foundation UK: Making community forests work for local and indigenous communities - May 2019 Klieman, K. A. (1997). Hunters and farmers of the Western Stanley, H. M. (1885). The Congo and the founding of its free Equatorial Rainforest: Economy and society, 3000 B.C. to A.D. state: a story of work and exploration. New York: Harper and 1880. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Brothers. Los Angeles. Turnbull, C. M. (1965). Wayward servants: the two worlds of the Laburthe-Tolra, P. (1981). Les seigneurs de la forêt: essai sur le African Pygmies. New York: Natural History Press. passé historique, l’organisation sociale et les normes éthiques des anciens Bëti du Cameroun. Paris: Publications de la Vansina, J. (1995). New linguistic evidence and ‘The Bantu Sorbonne. Expansion’. Journal of African History: 36:173-195.

Lewis, J, Freeman, L, and Borreill, S. (2008). Free, prior and Vansina, J. (1990). Paths in the rainforests: Toward a history of informed consent and sustainable forest management in the political tradition in Equatorial Africa. Madison: University of Congo Basin: A feasibility study conducted in the Democratic Wisconsin Press. Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo and Gabon regarding the operationalisation of FSC principles 2 and 3 in the Congo Vansina, J. (1984). Western Bantu Expansion. Journal of Basin. Berne: Society for Threatened Peoples. African History 25:129-145.

Matthysen, K. and Clarkson, I. (2012). Gold and diamonds in Vansina, J. (1965). Introduction à l’ethnographie du Congo. the Central African Republic: The country’s mining sector, and Kinshasa: Université Lovanium, Éditions universitaires du related social, economic and environmental issues, IPIS, Congo, No. 1. Antwerp.

MEFP (2011). Parc National de Mbaéré-Bodingué: Contribution des communautés locales et autochtones et de la société civile centrafricaine pour une gestion durable des ressources forestières et de l’environnement. London: Rainforest Foundation UK.

Moïse, R.E. (2014). ‘Do Pygmies have a history?’ Revisited: The Autochthonous tradition in the history of Equatorial Africa, in Hewlett, BS (ed.), Hunter-gatherers of the Congo Basin: Cultures, histories and biology of African Pygmies. Piscataway, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, pp. 85-116.

Moïse, R.E. (2011). If Pygmies could talk: creating indigenous development in equatorial Africa. In Before farming: the archaeology and anthropology of hunter-gatherers 2011 (4): 1-23.

Ngoa, H. (1968). Le mariage chez les Ewondo. Etudes sociologiques. Paris: Université de Paris, thèse de 3ème cycle.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, England; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Parke, T. H. (1891). My personal experiences in Equatorial Africa as the medical officer of the Emin Pasha relief expedition. London: Sampson Low, Marston and Co.

Putnam, P. (1948). ‘The Pygmies of the Ituri Forest.’ In: A reader in general anthropology, Carltoon Coon, ed. New York: H. Holt.

Pyhälä, A., Orozco, A. O. and Counsell, S. (2016). Protected areas in the Congo Basin: failing both people and biodiversity? London: Rainforest Foundation UK.

Stanley, H. M. (1890). Through the Dark Continent or the sources of the Nile around the great lakes of Equatorial Africa and down the Livingstone river to the Atlantic Ocean. New York: Harper and Brothers.

References 41 The CoNGOs project, “NGOs collaborating for equitable and sustainable community livelihoods in Congo Basin forests”, is managed by an IIED-led consortium, which aims to achieve improved governance and practice in community forestry in the Congo Basin. The geographical focus of the initiative is Cameroon, Central African Republic, Republic of Congo and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), with some policy and legal reform engagement work in Gabon. Dialogue, learning and advocacy activities are also carried out at the regional level. The members of the consortium are International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), ClientEarth, Fern,Forest Peoples Program (FPP), Rainforest Foundation UK (RFUK) et Well Grounded.

This report has been funded by the UK government. The information contained in this report is the sole responsibility of its authors and does not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.

2-4 The Atelier, Old Dairy Court, 17 Crouch Hill, London N4 4AP +44 (0)20 7485 0193 [email protected] Printed on 100% post-consumer waste recycled paper

Rainforestfoundationuk.org

Registered Charity No. 1138287 | Registered Company No. 7391285